MIFTAH
Thursday, 28 March. 2024
 
Your Key to Palestine
The Palestinian Initiatives for The Promotoion of Global Dialogue and Democracy
 
 
 

“Ending the conflict,” and thereby laying to rest any “further claims” by the Palestinians, has been the avowed objective of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak from his first day in office.

Immediately espoused by the US, this objective has framed all American moves, particularly by envoy Dennis Ross, as the defining factor of the American peace strategy.

Lest it be misunderstood, there is nothing that the Palestinians and Arabs would want more than a genuine end to the conflict.

The disparity and conflicting concepts as to “how” to lay the conflict to rest and the substance of the new peace paradigm remain almost irreconcilable — and there’s the rub.

Israel, so far and with a great deal of help from its American strategic ally, seems to have succeeded in creating an erroneous impression of Israeli “flexibility” as opposed to Palestinian “intractability” on the substantive issues—primarily Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugee question.

To be “flexible” (as per the Israeli-American definition), the Palestinians must accept a solution that incorporates and perpetuates multiple injustices.

First, they must accept the premise that Israel is a country above the law, hence not held accountable by the same standards and norms that apply to other states.

Second (and concomitantly), the Palestinians must accept the premise that they are an inferior species, outside the law, hence deprived of the protection afforded by international law to other nations.

Third, that the mere recognition by the Americans of the existence of the Palestinian people, and their deigning to talk to Palestinian onsider them as “friends”) is a sufficient sop to the Palestinian national ego, hence a golden key to a series of concessions (aka “flexibility” and “pragmatism”) in sheer gratitude, if nothing else.

Fourth, the relevant UN resolutions and international law are a “movable feast,” entirely subject to the calendar of US elections, Israeli coalition requirements, and a glaring imbalance of power that must be perpetuated by any peace agreements.

Fifth, the Palestinian leadership has no public opinion, hence no accountability, and is therefore capable of making any concessions with total disregard to its constituency. Stroking individual egos and feeding the appetites of a few would produce an (unjust) agreement that may be “sold” to the Palestinian public without fear of retribution or instability.

Sixth, the same applies to Arab public opinion that can be silenced with the persuasive strong-arm-tactics of the “mukhabarat” or police, or with a few processed slogans without much substance.

Seventh, the Arab and Islamic regimes need only be nudged by the US to exhibit total submission and abandonment of will—since they know on which side their bread is buttered.

Eighth, the European Union (among others) cannot fall far from the American tree—the Berlin (and other) declarations notwithstanding.

Ninth, the Palestinians are gullible enough to accept “symbols” of power and sovereignty and condescending gestures of functional responsibility, while the real substance remains under “overriding” Israeli sovereignty and control—therein lies the essence of “creativity.”

Tenth, and in the same vein, a semantic exercise of euphemistic discourse (such as the “right” of return becoming the “issue” of return and a humane gesture of limited, gradual family reunification) would gloss over real denotations. Substituting “compensation” for “return” rather than combining both forms of redress is also a misleading linguistic shift.

Eleventh, the same applies to false analogies that can somehow fabricate an equivalence between Jewish immigrants who had flocked to Palestine at the “invitation” of the Zionist movement and the Palestinian refugees who had been systematically terrorised and expelled from their homes and lands by armed Jewish gangs.

Twelfth, also related, is the issue of creative coinages whereby “divine sovereignty” is invoked to circumvent Palestinian legal and political claims.

Thirteenth, in addition to divine intervention in the issue of holy Jerusalem, several categories are devised to fragment the city even further by introducing categories that relate to holy cites, the old city and its various quarters, the neighborhoods within east Jerusalem, the suburbs around the city, and finally the villages annexed to it after 1967. Having forcibly recreated an artificial municipal entity with false geographical boundaries for “greater” and “metropolitan” Jerusalem, Israel is now deconstructing and fragmenting the city to fit into its own petty schemes for a “Palestinian-free” (or at least demographically minimized Jerusalem) that can be swallowed more easily by Israel.

Fourteenth, the expressions “minor border adjustments” or “rectifications” can be expanded blithely to encompass illegal settlements (that are still being expanded) and to create territorial and demographic incursions into Palestine thus creating not only Israeli extraterritoriality and a system of apartheid, but also undermining the viability and territorial integrity of the Palestinian state.

Fifteenth, the Palestinian state, somehow, is a “threat” to peace (rather than a guarantee for peace and stability) and a “unilateral act” rather than a legitimate exercise of self-determination. Real “unilateral” actions carried out by Israel, such as settlement activities, land confiscation, the annexation of Jerusalem, miraculously become attributes of Israeli “flexibility” and must be incorporated within any final status agreement.

Given all of the above, the Palestinians are being called upon not only to self-negate for the sake of “ending the conflict,” they must also adopt the Israeli narrative, discourse, and priorities in the context of the peace process to demonstrate that they are “flexible” enough, hence worthy of Israeli and American recognition.

The integrity of the Palestinian cause, as well as the authenticity of our utterance and rights, must be subsumed by the “overriding” concept of Israeli security, ideology, and self-definition.

Transforming the peace process into a self-destruct mechanism for the Palestinians as the only available option is nothing short of opting for the destruction of peace itself.

Hence, the cost of “ending the conflict” Israeli-style is actually perpetuating the conflict.

Instead of ending any “further claims” by the Palestinians, this approach not only postpones them but also aggravates long-standing historical grievances and injustices.

If only out of self-interest and pragmatic self-serving intentions, Israel must come to grips with the real requirements of a genuine peace.

Wiping the historical slate clean and ensuring a future of security and stability for all parties require the full recognition and enactment of Palestinian rights as being equal and legitimate.

The conflict will not end itself, and Palestinian claims will not disappear.

Postponing the inevitable will only raise its tragic cost.

 
 
Read More...
 
 
By the Same Author
 
Footer
Contact us
Rimawi Bldg, 3rd floor
14 Emil Touma Street,
Al Massayef, Ramallah
Postalcode P6058131

Mailing address:
P.O.Box 69647
Jerusalem
 
 
Palestine
972-2-298 9490/1
972-2-298 9492
info@miftah.org

 
All Rights Reserved © Copyright,MIFTAH 2023
Subscribe to MIFTAH's mailing list
* indicates required